North Korea says/does surprising and alarming thing - Page…

On March 14 2013 18:10 emjaytron wrote:
Does this remind anyone else of playing Civ 2 and wiping out a civilization until they have like 1 city left. Then for the rest of the game they are all "give us all your money and tech or we'll wipe you out blah blah"

On March 14 2013 16:47 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:

When did we steal tech from the Russians and I didn't hear about it?

Our most advanced systems (PAC-3) are highly adapt old and export-variant (eg. watered down shit sold to countries outside of USSR/Russia) S-300 batteries. Very advanced (at least by Euro/US standards), but far below what the Soviets/Russians have, and unproven in even optimized-condition short-range missile defense, nevermind ICBMs. Soviet/Russian military policy has always revolved around heavy defensive systems, which is why they have so much shit that can destroy planes and ships from ground and aerial platforms. Basically, if it's in the air or sea, it's not going to be for long. US military policy revolves around offensive air superiority and saturation bombing, and huge amounts of naval ships. Can't do the former if your air force can't function :/. That said, Russia is the only country that has ungodly amounts of air defense, so it's not a problem.

On March 15 2013 01:36 heliusx wrote:


Most advanced? Patriot missile is old stuff. Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (capable of intercepting ibcms and war heads in space at 38,000 km/h speeds). And aegis ships are new tech. Patriot is almost 30 years old... GMD is the most advanced missile defense system in the world. Kinetic kill vehicles are the future of missile defense and they have been here for a few years. The Russians are still using small nuclear missiles to intercept icbms, we have the tech to kill icbms by ramming a fucking missile with no explosives into an icbm going 30,000 km/h. "Shooting a bullet with a bullet.". It's not really comparable to what Russia is fielding atm.

On March 14 2013 16:47 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
I know you're being sarcastic, but Azarkon's idea is indeed terrible. It's been done before. When the Turkish nationalists took over western Turkey from the British, French, and Greeks, an international arrangement was made (especially after the disaster at Smyrna) to basically deport all the Greeks to Greece, and all the Turks and Muslims in Greece to Turkey. The repatriation was literally a disaster for Greek economy and society.

On March 15 2013 04:15 KwarK wrote:
Maybe it's just me but ten minutes seems like a really quick time from the first artillery attack to having higher ups discuss the situation, make an assessment and implement it. I can't conceive how giving grunts the freedom to escalate the conflict might possibly be viewed as a good thing.

On March 15 2013 04:20 FabledIntegral wrote:


If I recall whatever defense minister (or equivalent position) of South Korea ended up resigning after the North Korean artillery bombardment of the "contested" island a year or so ago because the response time in fact wasn't quick enough. I don't recall how long the SK response took but it wasn't very long if I recall.

On March 15 2013 04:22 KwarK wrote:

Which is the point I was making. That a delay for higher ups to make a decision is a good thing and ten minutes is still really quick.

On March 15 2013 03:45 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:

PAC-3 is relatively new (try mid-late 2000s). Ships with air defense are old as fuck. That's nothing new. The Russians use basic SAMs to intercept ICBMs, not small nuclear missiles. S-400 is fully capable of the task. Hell, the US wanted to get a close look at S-400 and other Russian air defense systems. This is just a SAM battery btw. They also have many dedicated missile interception systems that they've been developing for decades since the Cold War, but I was referring to things that number excessively, like their SAM batteries.

There are only two systems in the world that can intercept ICBMs. Besides them, many smaller systems exist (tactical ABMs), that generally cannot intercept intercontinental strategic missiles, even if within range—an incoming ICBM simply moves too fast for these systems.

The Russian A-35 anti-ballistic missile system for defense of Moscow, whose development started in 1971. Presently active, it is called A-135 and uses Gorgon and Gazelle missiles with nuclear warheads.

The U.S. Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD; previously known as National Missile Defense – NMD) system has recently reached initial operational capability. Instead of using an explosive charge, it launches a kinetic projectile. The George W. Bush administration accelerated development and deployment of a system proposed in 1998 by the Clinton administration. The system is a dual purpose test and interception facility in Alaska, and in 2006 was operational with a few interceptor missiles. The Alaska site provides more protection against North Korean missiles or launches from Russia or China, but is likely less effective against missiles launched from the Middle East. President Bush referenced the 9/11 attacks and the proliferation of ballistic missiles as reasons for missile defense. The current GMD system has the more limited goal of shielding against a limited attack by a rogue state..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile#Current_counter-ICBM_systems

On March 15 2013 03:45 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
Everything else in regards to US capability is mainly theoretical. We still have trouble shooting down Katyusha rockets and short-range ballistic missiles on optimal paths in testing. ICBMs are a whole different story.
But the PAC-3 is the primary thing we have what we have, based largely on 1970s export-variant technology from the USSR, especially for ballistic missile defense suites, which the export-model S300V's we got specialized in. That technology gain facilitated the development of the PAC-3.

On March 15 2013 03:45 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
The GMD is aging, and hasn't proven very successful. Most advanced? Far from it. It fails to even strike basic (short-range?) missiles with no countermeasures on optimized interception paths/conditions. The program is exceeding its costs and things just aren't going anywhere near as expected. You're right. It's not comparable to what the Russians have. It's a failing project. It either needs to be seriously re-evaluated to beat its stagnancy, or cancelled.

On March 15 2013 04:08 Azarkon wrote:


Uh, it's your analogy that is terrible. The hypothetical North Korean refugees aren't residents / citizens of China. They're not members of Chinese economy / society. They're hypothetical refugees who would cross the border in the event of war. Not only does repatriation address one of the main cited Chinese concerns about supporting North Korea, but is also South Korean policy: South Korea has been asking China to repatriate to South Korea North Korean deserters for years. It is China that is refusing to do so out of its alliance with North Korea.

But, as shown in recent weeks, the ties between China and North Korea are fraying. Chinese analysts and government mouth pieces are starting to call for China to abandon the rogue country and to strike a grand bargain with the US and South Korea. This is because there is growing belief within China that North Korea would sell out to the US in order to survive.

On March 15 2013 05:17 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:

Tal's sarcastic reply to you says enough.
In the case of war, we're talking about a situation that would require moving insane amounts of people from one country to another. The analogy is just the same. It's not something you can just do simply overnight. It can be done over months, if not years, which is far more realistic. The fact you think it's a simple matter of moving people is insane. The European powers thought the same. Instead, it crashed the Greek economy and created an insane amount of poverty and all sorts of social issues, because moving tons and tons of people into a country in a sudden movement cannot immediately be accomodated. It takes time.
In case of war, which you are taking about, the number of refugees could reach into the millions. Good luck sending all of those over to South Korea. You are extremely ignorant if you think such a thing is a simple task to both achieve and to accommodate. It's not. Sending them would be a logistical nightmare and South Korea instantly accommodating 100,000s to millions would be a disaster.

On March 15 2013 05:46 Azarkon wrote:


Anyone can be sarcastic. It is among the most useless forms of rhetorical expression when not backed up by sound reasoning.

Also, no one said it had to happen overnight. False premise -> false reasoning. The idea would be to gradually repatriate them to South Korea, who would in turn send them back to rebuild North Korea, as North Korea would not last >1 year in a war. Joining two countries that have fundamentally different socioeconomic conditions is never easy, but from what I understand it's what South Koreans want and are willing to sacrifice for. Thus, China is doing no one a favor by propping up North Korea on the excuse of 'refugees.'

On March 15 2013 06:04 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:

My point still stands. You can't repatriate millions of people overnight as you seem to be implying. The logistics and accommodations for that would be a catastrophe. It would take a good amount of time to make it work out decently.